OIR ON THE COMMISSION’S OWN MOTION TO ADOPT NEW SAFETY AND RELIABILITY REGULATIONS FOR NATURAL GAS TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION PIPELINES AND RELATED RATEMAKING MECHANISMS (R.11-02-019/A.11-11-002)
(DATA REQUEST SCGC-TCAP-PSEP-12Revision 1 061812)
______
QUESTION SCGC-TCAP-PSEP-12.1:
12.1.The Comments of Southern California Gas Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company [on] the Proposed Decision Transferring Consideration of Pipeline Safety [the] Enhancement Plan to the Triennial Cost Allocation Proceeding (“Comments”) at page 4-5 claim that the following excerpt from the Proposed Decision is incorrect:
Pursuant to 49 CFR 192.517, each natural gas transmission system operator must “make, and retain for the useful life of the pipeline, a record of each [pressure] test performed.” Traceable, verifiable, and complete records are essential for pipeline subject to the pressure test exception found in 192.619(c) which bases MAOP calculations on recorded “actual operating pressure.” Therefore, SDG&E and SoCalGas were required by federal regulations, which have been adopted by this Commission in GO 112, to maintain their natural gas transmission system pipeline records in accord with the standard set forth in the NTSB directive.
12.1.1.Please identify separately each factual error that SoCalGas/SDG&E believe is in the quoted statement.
12.1.2.Please identify and provide the document in which SoCalGas/SDG&E believe the standard “traceable, verifiable, and complete” originated.
12.1.3.Please explain in detail what SoCalGas/SDG&E believe is required by the standard “traceable, verifiable, and complete.”
12.1.4.Please state in detail the standard for records retention that SoCalGas/SDG&E believe is set forth in 49 CFR 192.517.
12.1.5.Please state in detail the standard for records retention that SoCalGas/SDG&E believe is set forth in CPUC General Order 112.
12.1.6.Please explain in detail how the standard identified in the answer to the previous question differs from the standard “traceable, verifiable, and complete.”
12.1.7.What changes, if any, in record keeping procedures, systems, or facilities would SoCalGas/SDG&E be required to make in order to maintain the data required by 49 CFR 192.517 under the standard “traceable, verifiable, and complete?”
12.1.8.Please provide a copy of the November 23, 2011 NTSB letter to the AGA and the June 14, 2011 letter from the AGA to the NTSB that are cited in footnote 4 to the Comments.
QUESTION SCGC-TCAP-PSEP-12.1:
12.1.1.The text quoted above appears to link two separate and unrelated quotes from record content to leap to an inference about comprehensive data quality requirements for all records related to a pipeline. 49 CFR 192.517 discusses retaining records of pressure tests. 49 CFR 192.619(c)in particular discusses how an operator without records of pressure tests may establish the MAOP for a pipeline based on the maximum operating pressure that occurred in a particular period of time. Neither paragraph discusses records for any kind of data other than pressure. For example, neither provision discusses data about the attributes of the pipe. In fact, the application of each of these two paragraphs requires no knowledge of additional information about the pipe other than the maximum pressure it experienced during certain events and certain periods of time.
Moreover, the quoted texterroneously asserts that federal regulations require operators to maintain records in accordance with the standard set forth in the January 3, 2011 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)safety recommendations issued to Pacific Gas and Electric Company(PG&E). This is in error for the following reasons:
- There is no linkage between the cited federal regulations and the NTSB safety recommendations issued to PG&E in January 2011;
- The regulations do not use the same, similar, or synonymous terminology to define requirements for record quality;
- The federal and state regulatory agencies do not define these terms in the many places throughout the regulations where definitions are given, nor are the terms defined in “Frequently Asked Questions” published on their website;
- The Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA only recently issued an Advisory Bulletin that provides a definition of the words “traceable, verifiable, and complete” (ADB-2012-06, Federal Register v.77 n.88, May 7, 2012), nearly a year and a half after NTSB used the terms. SoCalGas and SDG&E believe this delay is due to the fact that the industry required guidance because, the use of the phrase “traceable, verifiable and complete” in the natural gas industry was new and did not originate with the regulator (i.e. PHMSA is the federal regulator, whereas the term was first used by the NTSB);
- The requirements in 49 CFR 192.517 did not exist prior to 1970 and thus cannot apply retroactively to facilities that existed before then;
- Existing requirements do not necessarily ensure meeting the criteria defining these terms set forth in ADB-2012-06. For example, theexample of what constitutes a “complete” pressure test record in the May 7 Advisory Bulletin lists two pieces of information that are not mentioned as necessary data in 192.517.
- The May 7 Advisory Bulletin states “operators should ensure all records establish confidence” and “the operator may need to conduct other activities…” The words “should” and “may” are discretionary terms. While advisory, they are not identical in meaning to “shall” or “must.”
- We believe that the terminology “traceable, verifiable, and complete”, as applied to documents related to the design, construction, or operation of a natural gas pipeline, originated with NTSB’s recommendations P-10-2 and P-10-3 to Pacific Gas & Electric, issued on January 3, 2011. The NTSB’s recommendation in P-10-2 that records “should[as opposed to “shall” or “must”] be traceable, verifiable, and complete” was applied to “all as-built drawings, alignment sheets, and specifications, and all design, construction, inspection, testing, maintenance, and other related records…relating to pipeline system components, such as pipe segments, valves, fittings, and weld seams for Pacific Gas and Electric Company natural gas transmission lines in class 3 and class 4 locations and class 1 and class 2 high consequence areas that have not had a maximum allowable operating pressure established through prior hydrostatic testing.”Both safety recommendations are publicly available on the NTSB website.
12.1.3.As explained in our April 15 Report on Actions Taken in Response to NTSB Recommendations, prior to issuance of ADB-2012-06 on May 7, 2012, SoCalGas and SDG&E believed the term “traceable, verifiable and complete” appeared to require a perfect chain of document custody:
Although NTSB Safety Recommendation P-10-3 authorizes PG&E to “[u]se traceable, verifiable and complete records located by implementation of Safety Recommendation P-10-2 (Urgent) to determine the valid maximum allowable operating pressure, based on the weakest section of the pipeline or component to ensure safe operation,” SoCalGas and SDG&E did not validate the MAOP of any pipeline segments using the approach specified in Safety Recommendation P-10-3. In order to do so, SoCalGas and SDG&E believe they would need to affirmatively state that no pipeline materials other than those specified and documented in identified records were installed. That is, records must demonstrate, without fail, that no components of any portion of the pipeline segment were changed subsequent to the date of identified records, effectively requiring a perfect chain of document custody for pipelines that may have been installed over fifty years ago and that have been subject to many different document retention regulatory requirements.
12.1.4. SoCalGas and SDG&E believe that 192.517 requires retaining records pertaining to tests performed under 192.505 and 192.507 for the useful life of the pipeline, for pipelines that entered service or were tested after the first effective date of those regulations. SoCalGas and SDG&E believe that the Department of Transportation understands that such a requirement cannot apply retrospectively to a period of time when the regulatory requirement did not exist.
12.1.5.From 1961 to 1970, CPUC General Order 112 required an operator to retain a record of pressure testing for the life of the pipeline. While the question did not ask about record content, the only specific requirements on test record content in General Order 112 were fluid type and test pressure. Prior to 1961, there were no statutory requirements on test record retention or record content.
12.1.6.The standards discussed above do not use the terms “traceable, verifiable, and complete”. .
The 1961 General Order 112 was largely based upon the 1958 ASA B31.8 standard. Data record requirements were described in B31.8 for only a few situations related to construction of the pipeline, namely: a record of girth weld test method and results (with no retention period specified); and a record of pressure testing stating the test medium and test pressure, to be retained for the useful life of the pipeline. General Order 112 also included a Chapter VI “Records”. Paragraph 301.1 stated “The responsibility for the maintenance of necessary records to establish that compliance with these rules has been accomplished rests with the utility. Such records shall be available for inspection at all times by the Commission or Commission Staff”. Record content was therefore whatever might be necessary to show that the requirements of B31.8 were complied with. That could well be extensive but the record content is not specified and standards for traceability, verifiability, or completeness of the records were not given. What constituted “necessary… to establish compliance with these rules” was thereforesubject to interpretation at such time as the records might be examined by Commission Staff. Paragraph 302 stated “Specifications for material and equipment, installation, testing and fabrication shall be maintained by the utility.”
General Order 112A in 1964 was largely based upon the 1963 ASA B31.8 standard. General Order 112B in 1967 was largely based upon the 1967 USAS B31.8 standard. The record-keeping requirements were the same as the prior B31.8 and General Order 112. General Order 112C in 1971 adopted 49 CFR 192. Paragraph 192.243(f) added specific details to the weld inspection record content and extended the retention period to the life of the facility. Paragraph 192.517 added specific details to the pressure test record content. These requirements have remained unchanged since 1970. General Order 112 moved general record requirements to Subpart B, but the language was the same as earlier versions.
The cited regulations address record requirements for narrow purposes. They do not speak to record content, accuracy, precision, completeness, consistency with other data, traceability, reliability, security, accessibility, or other data attributes for all parts of the pipeline or all processes or activities performed during the design and construction of the pipeline. Outside of Subpart O requirements for assessing integrity threats affecting pipeline segments in High Consequence Areas, there are few specific requirements in Part 192 that could be construed as invoking these criteria for other types of data.
Absent agreed definitions, the terms “traceable, verifiable, and complete” are vague and open to interpretation, which is why the issuance of ADB-2012-06 on May 7, 2012 was necessary. It is noted that the description of data elements that make a pressure record complete given in the Advisory Bulletin example are not the same as the data elements required by 192.517. So compliance with the regulation does not appear to ensure that data meets the test of “traceable, verifiable, and complete” as explained in the Advisory Bulletin.
12.1.7.SoCalGas and SDG&E believe that our current practices and policies provide a solid framework for compliance with the records requirements going forward, however that does not mean that the same standard of data reliability can be feasibly achieved retroactively, and particularly prior to 1961.
12.1.8 Attached are the requested documents and the link where the documents are posted.
QUESTION SCGC-TCAP-PSEP-12.2:
12.2.Page 50 of SoCalGas/SDG&E’s Prepared Testimony states: “Our proposed plan to test or replace pipeline segments that do not have sufficient documentation of pressure testing to satisfy the requirements of 49 CFR 192.619(a)(b) or (d) prioritizes pipeline segments located in populated areas….”
12.2.1.In determining whether or not a pipeline has sufficient documentation of pressure testing to satisfy the requirements of 49 CFR 192.619(a)(b) or (d), have SoCalGas/SDG&E applied the standard that the companies believe is set forth in 49 CFR 192.517, the NTSB “traceable, verifiable, and complete” standard, or some other standard?
12.2.2.Please describe each item of documentation that SoCalGas/SDG&E believe is required for a pipeline to meet the “sufficient documentation of pressure testing” standard.
12.2.3.For each pipeline identified by SoCalGas and SDG&E has requiring either pressure testing or replacement because of insufficient documentation of pressure testing, please identify the item(s) of documentation (as defined in the previous response) that is (are) missing from the SoCalGas and SDG&E records for the specified pipeline.
RESPONSE SCGC-TCAP-PSEP-12.2:
12.2.1 As explained on pages 50-51 of our Testimony, SoCalGas and SDG&E prioritized pipelines that do not have sufficient documentation of a strength test to 1.25 x MAOP to be addressed in Phase 1. The phrase “in accordance with the Commission’s directives in this Rulemaking” includes the Commission’s directive that “all in-service natural gas transmission pipeline in California has been pressure tested in accord with 49 CFR 192.619, excluding subsection 49 CFR 192.619 (c).”
The requirements in 192.517 did not exist prior to 1970 and thus cannot apply retroactively to facilities that existed before then. Similarly, the NTSB phrase “traceable, verifiable and complete” was first used on January 3, 2011 and only with respect to a safety recommendation to PG&E. Therefore SoCalGas and SDG&E used the criterion set forth above, which is based on engineering principles and can be applied equally to pipelines installed at different times and subject to different recordkeeping requirement.
12.2.2 Section II.A.1 of the testimony describes one key element of the PSEP as “a plan to test or replace all pipeline segments that do not have sufficient documentation of pressure testing to satisfy the requirements of 49 CFR 192.619(a)(b) or (d).” In this context, sufficient documentation can be described as records that include all elements required by the cited regulation.
Section IV.D of the testimony explains that in Phase 1A, SoCalGas and SDG&E prioritize those transmission pipeline segments in populated areas that do not have sufficient documentationto validate a post-construction pressure test of at least 1.25 x MAOP. In this context, sufficient documentation can be described as at least two corroborating documents demonstrating that a 1.25 x MAOP pressure test was performed or one primary document such as a Design Data, Test Chart or Hydrotest Log.
12.2.3 SoCalGas and SDG&E object to this request under Rule 10.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure on the grounds that the burden and expense of the request clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiving this objection, SoCalGas and SDG&E respond as follows:
The need to separately group all segments with similar documentation histories was not deemed critical at the time of the records review, and as a result, responsive data is not compiled in any systematic fashion or available for reporting in the manner requested. Examples of incomplete documentation may include: test charts that do not reference a work order or location and hydro test logs that do not reference the work order or the location, pressure, duration or medium.
QUESTION SCGC-TCAP-PSEP-12.3:
12.3.In SoCalGas/SDG&E’s January 13, 2012 Comments in Response to the ACR and Supplement to Request for Memorandum Account, Attachment B, SoCalGas identifies a 2011 cost of $5,844,000 in records review expense and SDG&E identifies a 2011 cost of $717,000 in records review expense.
12.3.1.Please describe in detail the activities that each company undertook during 2011 that constitutes “Records Review”—“Validation of existing MAOP’s pursuant to Resolution L-410.
12.3.2.For each company, please breakdown the 2011 costs into direct labor, indirect labor (that is, payroll taxes, incremental benefits costs, other), outside services, and incremental overhead.
12.3.3.Please breakdown the direct labor cost into the following categories: engineering, regulatory, legal, senior executive, clerical, and other (specify).
RESPONSE SCGC-TCAP-PSEP-12.3:
12.3.1 As stated on page 6 of our April 15, 2011 Report on Actions Taken in Response to NTSB Safety Recommendations:
SoCalGas and SDG&E scrutinized the records for eachof the roughly 4,000 pipeline segments that make up the 1,622 Criteria Miles to identify
all work orders that support the segmentation of the pipeline by diameter, grade, andwall thickness. Each work order was reviewed to determine if post-constructionstrength test records validated at least a 1.25 MAOP safety margin.
In 2011, this effort focused on a second document review of the Category 4 criteria miles andon the remaining non-high consequence area (HCA) segments in Class 1 and 2 locations.
12.3.2 (REVISED): The costs shown in Appendix B are only the DIRECT costs related to the activities identified. The amounts shown do not include the associated loaders/overheads. The table below provides the breakdown for incremental direct internal labor and non-labor outside professional service costs required for conducting the records review during 2011.
2011 O&M Direct Costs for Records Research
(Thousands of Dollars of Year)
SCG / SDGELabor / Non-labor / Total / Labor / Non-labor / Total
2011 / 646 / 5198 / 5844 / 235 / 482 / 717
All costs for records review expenses in 2011 are non-labor costs for outside services.
12.3.3 See Response SCGC-TCAP-PSEP-12.3.2.
QUESTION SCGC-TCAP-PSEP-12.4:
12.4.In SoCalGas/SDG&E’s January 13, 2012 Comments in Response to the ACR and Supplement to Request for Memorandum Account, Attachment B, SoCalGas identifies a 2012 cost of $4,400,000 in records review expense and SDG&E identifies a 2012 cost of $570,000 in records review expense.
12.4.1.Please describe in detail the activities that each company undertook during first quarter of 2012 and the activities that each company forecasts to be completed during the remaining three quarters of 2012 that constitutes “Records Review”—“Validation of existing MAOP’s pursuant to Resolution L-410.